Everything Derozan

[Wild-ling#1]

Yes, there are loads of ways to get Durant while keeping DD. They pretty much all (except the most fantastical and unrealistic) require us to operate over the cap, in which case how much DD signs for is largely irrelevant, as we should be well clear of the tax threshold anyway.

Which was my point with my response to Joey. If Durant wants to come here, nothing DD does outside of leaving will change the team's ability to get him.

Assuming there's no limit to how much "over the cap" management is prepared to be, right? Otherwise, the DeMar numbers might matter?

[DanH]

Assuming there's no limit to how much "over the cap" management is prepared to be, right? Otherwise, the DeMar numbers might matter?

It's no business of the players if the owners are cheapskates. And if they are, they won't be getting both DD and KD. Period.

Would you take a pay cut to play with the player you want to play with? Sure. Would you take a pay cut to get the owners more money in spite of it not affecting your ability to play with that other player? Not a chance.

[psrs1]

sarcasm

Ok

[Abbas]

oh god Demar better be okay. JV is already done, if we lose demar were fucked

and how the fuck didnt he get a call lol

[CB4Champ]

One thing that angers me about TORONTO Raptors is that The TEAM FINALLY GOOD THEN THE ORGANIZATION RAISES THE PRICES SO THE REGULAR FANS CAN'T AFFORD THE TICKETS

AND THEN THE SUITS GO TO THE GAME AND DRINK THERE TEA AND CRUMPETS!!!

[92TillInfinity]

One thing that pisses me about TORONTO Raptors is that The TEAM FINALLY GOOD THEN THE ORGANIZATION RAISES THE PRICES SO THE REGULAR FANS CAN'T AFFORD THE TICKETS

AND THEN THE SUITS GO TO THE GAME AND DRINK THERE TEA AND CRUMPETS!!!

In THEIR defense, tea and crumpets are a surprisingly soothing and refreshing gametime snack.

[psrs1]

One thing that pisses me about TORONTO Raptors is that The TEAM FINALLY GOOD THEN THE ORGANIZATION RAISES THE PRICES SO THE REGULAR FANS CAN'T AFFORD THE TICKETS

AND THEN THE SUITS GO TO THE GAME AND DRINK THERE TEA AND CRUMPETS!!!

They serve tea in platinum club but not crumpets! Though crumpets actually sounds good.

[Barolt]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2016/

Not sure what to make of it, but looking at shooting by scoring margin, DeMar shoots his worst percentages when the game is close.

[tDotted]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2016/

Not sure what to make of it, but looking at shooting by scoring margin, DeMar shoots his worst percentages when the game is close.

Yeah, a lot of players do.

Anyway, DeMar's been shooting very well this month. 46% from the field (and that's with his % at the rim being much lower than his career average).

[Wild-ling#1]

It's no business of the players if the owners are cheapskates. And if they are, they won't be getting both DD and KD. Period.

Would you take a pay cut to play with the player you want to play with? Sure. Would you take a pay cut to get the owners more money in spite of it not affecting your ability to play with that other player? Not a chance.

Doesn't this scenario assume an ownership indifferent to profit and loss - an ownership that ought to go into the luxury tax to acquire a player (eventually incurring heavy disincentive penalties) without expecting the players to participate financially?

[DanH]

Doesn't this scenario assume an ownership indifferent to profit and loss - an ownership that ought to go into the luxury tax to acquire a player (eventually incurring heavy disincentive penalties) without expecting the players to participate financially?

If owners expect players to participate, for the purpose of saving those owners money, they will see said players sign elsewhere. Period.

[JWash]

Doesn't this scenario assume an ownership indifferent to profit and loss - an ownership that ought to go into the luxury tax to acquire a player (eventually incurring heavy disincentive penalties) without expecting the players to participate financially?

We're talking about two VERY different conversations here.

Saying to players "Ok we need you to take a paycut so we can get all of you stars on one team" (Pat Riley to LBJ, Wade and Bosh) is very different from saying "We need you to take a paycut so we don't have to pay luxury tax".

One is necessary for the players to make the team better. The other has the sole purpose of lining the owners' pockets and doesn't benefit the players in any way.

Players don't give two fucks if owners are paying luxury tax or not. And why should they? The owners are like 100-1000 times more wealthy than they are. If you want a player to take a paycut there better be a very good basketball reason for why they're doing that. "Wahh wahhh wahh, I'm gonna lose money" isn't one.

[Wild-ling#1]

We're talking about two VERY different conversations here.

Saying to players "Ok we need you to take a paycut so we can get all of you stars on one team" (Pat Riley to LBJ, Wade and Bosh) is very different from saying "We need you to take a paycut so we don't have to pay luxury tax".

One is necessary for the players to make the team better. The other has the sole purpose of lining the owners' pockets and doesn't benefit the players in any way.

Players don't give two fucks if owners are paying luxury tax or not. And why should they? The owners are like 100-1000 times more wealthy than they are. If you want a player to take a paycut there better be a very good basketball reason for why they're doing that. "Wahh wahhh wahh, I'm gonna lose money" isn't one.

A corporation is entitled to decide to show a profit on their franchise each year - so you'd need to know those numbers to say what you've just said (even if the equity value of the franchise grows significantly), I think.

... Which is why we might prefer billionaire owners ... oddly ...

[DanH]

A corporation is entitled to decide to show a profit on their franchise each year - so you'd need to know those numbers to say what you've just said (even if the equity value of the franchise grows significantly), I think.

... Which is why we might prefer billionaire owners ... oddly ...

Uh, no. The players don't care and no owner in the world will successfully pitch a "save me money" contract to a player. No corporation is entitled to show a profit - they are entitled to try to, but by no means are their employees, especially prospective employees, forced to take a pay cut for no other reason than to guarantee (or increase) said profit.

[Just Is]

A corporation is entitled to decide to show a profit on their franchise each year - so you'd need to know those numbers to say what you've just said (even if the equity value of the franchise grows significantly), I think.

... Which is why we might prefer billionaire owners ... oddly ...

To put it another way: "Hey, we need you to take a pay cut so that I can save more money." You're not going to find anyone in any employment anywhere who says yes to that unless the alternative is no job.